Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Desertdog on August 30, 2009, 11:15:35 PM
-
This Poll should scare the britches out of the GOP, but I figure they won't believe it. The Dems probably think they can buy enough votes to stay in power.
57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/57_would_like_to_replace_entire_congress
If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure how they would vote.
Overall, these numbers are little changed since last October. When Congress was passing the unpopular $700-billion bailout plan in the heat of a presidential campaign and a seeming financial industry meltdown, 59% wanted to throw them all out. At that time, just 17% wanted to keep them.
There has been a bit of a partisan shift since last fall. With Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress, it's not surprising to find that the number of Democrats who would vote to keep the entire Congress has grown from 25% last fall to 43% today. In fact, a modest plurality of Democrats would now vote to keep the legislators. Last fall, a plurality of Democrats were ready to throw them all out.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
While Democrats have become more supportive of the legislators, voters not affiliated with either major party have moved in the opposite direction. Today, 70% of those not affiliated with either major party would vote to replace all of the elected politicians in the House and Senate. That’s up from 62% last year.
Republicans, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly support replacing everyone in the Congress. Their views have not changed. But Republican voters are disenchanted with their team as much as the Congress itself: 69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) now believe that members of Congress are overpaid. That’s up 10 percentage points from last October. Just five percent (5%) think their Congress member is paid too little. Thirty percent (30%) think the pay is about right.
One reason for this attitude may be that most voters say they understand the health care legislation better than Congress. Just 22% think the legislature has a good understanding of the issue. Three-out-of-four (74%) trust their own economic judgment more than Congress’.
Just 14% give Congress good or excellent review for their overall performance, while only 16% believe it’s Very Likely that Congress will address the most important problems facing our nation. Seventy-five percent (75%) say members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than they are in helping people. On the brighter side, just 37% say most in Congress have extramarital affairs.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans believe that when members of Congress meet with regulators and other government officials, they do so to help their friends and hurt their political opponents. Most believe that’s why politicians are able to solicit contributions from business leaders. Most, however, say it’s generally a good investment because political donors get more than their money’s worth. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American adults say political donors get more than their money back in terms of favors from members of Congress.
Despite these reviews, more than 90% of Congress routinely gets reelected every two years. It’s a shock when any incumbent loses. One explanation for this phenomenon frequently heard in Washington, D.C. is that “people hate Congress but love their own congressman.”
Voters have a different perspective, and 50% say 'rigged' election rules explain high reelection rate for Congress.
When the Constitution was written, the nation’s founders expected that there would be a 50% turnover in the House of Representatives every election cycle. That was the experience they witnessed in state legislatures at the time (and most of the state legislatures offered just one-year terms). For well over 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, the turnover averaged in the 50% range as expected.
In the 20th century, turnover began to decline. As power and prestige flowed to Washington during the New Deal era, fewer and fewer members of Congress wanted to leave. In 1968, congressional turnover fell to single digits for the first time ever, and it has remained very low ever since.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us onTwitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members.
-
In the 20th century, turnover began to decline. As power and prestige flowed to Washington during the New Deal era, fewer and fewer members of Congress wanted to leave. In 1968, congressional turnover fell to single digits for the first time ever, and it has remained very low ever since.
Imagine that. As FDR implemented his massive socialist programs, the largest the nation had ever seen up to that point, our political makeup shifted on the spectrum away from a true representative government, and towards an oligarchical/aristocratic model. Who would have thought? Would could have possibly predicted that a top-heavy government with a focus on centralized control would help fertilize a system where a handful of elites stay in power for most of their lives while ruling us from afar?
-
Why would it scare the party in the minority? Definitely good news for them.
-
I can see emptying Congress. I'm not so sure I can see sending more public trough feeders to Washington, D.C.
I'll bet we could get along just fine without Congress for awhile.
-
Why would it scare the party in the minority? Definitely good news for them.
Because their incumbents are just as culpable.
-
Why would it scare the party in the minority?
Read the title again, "57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress", which includes them, also. Want to run for Congress? Looks like a good time to go for it.
-
It realty does;t matter!
The sheep will vote in a whole new batch of dumbfawk into congress! =(
-
An anti-incumbent mood benefits the party with fewer incumbents. It's a two-party system. This ain't rocket science, people.
-
An anti-incumbent mood benefits the party with fewer incumbents. It's a two-party system. This ain't rocket science, people.
Today, 70% of those not affiliated with either major party would vote to replace all of the elected politicians in the House and Senate. That’s up from 62% last year.
Republicans, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly support replacing everyone in the Congress. Their views have not changed. But Republican voters are disenchanted with their team as much as the Congress itself: 69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.
I don't think this is good news for anyone. 70% of Republican voters feel that current Republicans in congress are out of touch, how is that possibly good news for the GOP?
Both parties appear to have lost the independent vote, whether or not that matters is a different story.
Personally, these numbers reflect my feelings on the current Congress. The only problem is that the GOP has strayed so far, that there is no point in voting for them. Similarly many are saying the same about the Democrats.
If I vote in the next election, I plan to flip a coin. Since we are a two-party system, and neither party's platform is desirable to me, it makes as much sense as anything else.
-
An anti-incumbent mood benefits the party with fewer incumbents. It's a two-party system. This ain't rocket science, people.
Indeed.
The Democrats have a huge majority in congress right now. Congress = Democrats. The fact that the general public wants to oust all of congress is a major problem for the Dems.
Consider the reverse scenario. If the Democrats had a huge majority in congress and the public was extremely pleased with congress, wouldn't that be a good thing for them?
<For the obtuse among us, the answer is "yes, that would be a very good thing for the Democrats.">
-
69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.
This continues to blow my mind. How long will it take until people realize that the republicans are not the republicans their granddaddy voted for?
When every republican is a RINO, the RINO label stops making any sense. The idea of the mythical "ideal republican" is just something that results in them remaining a relevant party that much longer.
-
The Democrats have a huge majority in congress right now. Congress = Democrats. The fact that the general public wants to oust all of congress is a major problem for the Dems.
Well, they already ousted many of the Republicans, how else do you think the Democrats got their majority? Now they're learning the other side isn't worth a damn either.
Chris
-
What sucks is how much money it takes to even think about running for a U.S. Seante or Legislative seat. Millons for a job that pays $180K a year.
-
But Republican voters are disenchanted with their team as much as the Congress itself: 69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.
Why vote for Democrat Lite when the real thing is available?
You could just see how out-of-touch they were by the kind and loving eulogies GOPers were heaping on Ted Kennedy. Now, you know they're not going to come forward and trash him, but as they say. "If you can't say anything nice, say nothing at all."
Silence would have been classy, and telling.
But we didn't get that from the GOP. :mad:
-
Why vote for Democrat Lite when the real thing is available?
This is the thing Republicans continually overlook. No democrat is going to pass up the real deal in favor of someone who seems wishy washy. Democrats vote democrat. You either change their mind, or you don't. But they damn sure do not vote for a Republican who tries to play at being a democrat. The reverse is also true, but very few democrats play at being a republican.
If republicans actually stood up and acted like republicans, they would do a lot better in elections. This last cycle proved that.
-
Much as I hate to I have to agree with zahc. When the party leadership and the majority of the party act one way, that is how the "real" party is. Conservatives are the RINO's now. :(
-
If republicans actually stood up and acted like republicans, they would do a lot better in elections.
To me, Ronald Reagan did and look how successful he was.
Now if only the GOP would use him as their guide.
Harry Truman is the last Democrat president I had respect for.
-
But they damn sure do not vote for a Republican who tries to play at being a democrat.
QFT. When a Republican moves to the left, he may get a few kind words from leftists, he may get a figurative pat on the head . . . but he won't get leftist votes!
Harry Truman is the last Democrat president I had respect for.
When I was in school, learning about Harry Truman, I initially had some respect for him . . . until I learned more about his handing Eastern Europe over to the USSR, his ROEs in Korea, his refusal to sell weapons to the Nationalist Chinese at the end of WWII, etc., all of which, in my eyes, severely tarnished his reputation.
-
Harry Truman is the last Democrat president I had respect for.
I'd have to go back to Grover Cleveland. I have a massive amount of respect for that guy.
-
What sucks is how much money it takes to even think about running for a U.S. Seante or Legislative seat. Millons for a job that pays $180K a year.
Yep. No one should be surprised that politics gets largely filled with crooks, liars, zealots, and the arrogant.
-
I like my Congressman for about 8/10ths of his positions. I'd trade him in a heartbeat if it meant that we get to hit the reset switch.
-
I like my Congressman for about 8/10ths of his positions. I'd trade him in a heartbeat if it meant that we get to hit the reset switch.
After the last redistricting, I wound up in a little bitty "arm" of the district assigned to Lloyd Dogget (D-TX). :mad:
I'm not holding out for a press of the RESET switch, I'd be willing to trade Dogget for less . . . a whole lot less.
So if you have a guy in a Wookie suit, a flatulent St. Bernard, a dyslexic chipmunk . . . call me, I'm open to all offers . . . someone take him . . . PLEASE.
-
What we are seeing is the rejection of the concept of a professional political class, not TEMPORARY public servants.
What the statists love is the permanent politician, elected early and dying in office. Examples: Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, et al.
No one should make a career out of representing constituents.
-
As long as the Repubs can avoid getting a piece of the blame for anything the Dems do, they will be okay. They would, after all, be able to campaign on how much the Democrats suck as leaders.
Personally, I don't think they have anything to worry about other than tripping over their own stupidity. My hope is the leadership figured out why they lost the majority in the first place.
-
Imagine that. As FDR implemented his massive socialist programs, the largest the nation had ever seen up to that point, our political makeup shifted on the spectrum away from a true representative government, and towards an oligarchical/aristocratic model. Who would have thought? Would could have possibly predicted that a top-heavy government with a focus on centralized control would help fertilize a system where a handful of elites stay in power for most of their lives while ruling us from afar?
Wasn't that 1968 time frame about when the first campaign finance reform (incumbent protection reform) was passed also?
-
I don't think this is good news for anyone. 70% of Republican voters feel that current Republicans in congress are out of touch, how is that possibly good news for the GOP?
Ya know, I'm no expert on the horse-race side of politics. But this here is just as plain as day. How can I explain the axiomatic? Here goes:
Voters are fed up with the current crop of numb-skulls in Congress. That means that a lot of numb-skulls are fixing to get voted out. Since most of those numb-skulls are Democratic numb-skulls, that means a number of Democrats will be replaced. And if a Democratic numb-skull loses his seat, who is likely to be the winner? That's right, a Republican numb-skull.
Is any of that unclear?
-
I think different D's is more likely than replacing D's with R's.
-
Ya know, I'm no expert on the horse-race side of politics. But this here is just as plain as day. How can I explain the axiomatic? Here goes:
Voters are fed up with the current crop of numb-skulls in Congress. That means that a lot of numb-skulls are fixing to get voted out. Since most of those numb-skulls are Democratic numb-skulls, that means a number of Democrats will be replaced. And if a Democratic numb-skull loses his seat, who is likely to be the winner? That's right, a Republican numb-skull.
Is any of that unclear?
You assume that voters will place all of the blame on the Democrats. 70% of Republicans are dissatisfied with their own party (if this poll is accurate and still accurate at election time), I presume they won't consider third party or democratic candidates as viable alternatives. Some here also assume that everyone has already forgotten their grievances with the Republicans, from when they had control of both houses and the POTUS.
From my perspective, you are ignoring the possibility of not voting for either party, or not voting at all.
I am suggesting that these dissatisfied republicans will simply not vote in the next election; I have no plans to vote in the next election. I like to think of it as the McCain effect. Many conservatives I know either voted third party, or didn't vote in the last election.
The republicans have made their position clear on many issues, and have indicated they refuse to back down from them. The only logical conclusions I can form (based on the party's past actions) is that the republican party platform now stands for a large authoritative government, and an interventionist foreign policy to name a few. Does it really matter who we vote for?
I think different D's is more likely than replacing D's with R's.
I agree.
-
You assume that voters will place all of the blame on the Democrats.
From my perspective, you are ignoring the possibility of not voting for either party, or not voting at all.
I'm afraid you're just making things up. I haven't said or implied any of those things.
When the other side is in charge, any shake-up is a huge opportunity for your side. When you are in charge, massive levels of voters dissatisfaction is a VERY BAD SIGN.
I also think that third parties could use this to their advantage, but I have no idea whether they are in a position to do so effectively, or if any of those parties have the acumen to make use of it.
-
When the other side is in charge, any shake-up is a huge opportunity for your side. When you are in charge, massive levels of voters dissatisfaction is a VERY BAD SIGN.
Yup. When the current situation is good for you, you're better off keeping things the way they are. When the current situation is bad for you, you benefit from changing it.
I also think that third parties could use this to their advantage, but I have no idea whether they are in a position to do so effectively, or if any of those parties have the acumen to make use of it.
I agree that this would be an excellent opportunity for a third party to make a run for it, about as good as it ever will be. If they can't make something of themselves in this climate, I'm not sure they ever can. So, third party-ers, can you deliver the goods?
Time will tell.
-
Or it may be possible for "rebels" within either party to get their people in with some kind of new message.